Category: Politics

This is what happens when a political apparatchik forgets her cover story and speaks her mind:

(Via TPM.)

Peter Watson’s piece in today’s Times – Here’s an improvement on democracy – has a lousy title but is spot-on otherwise:

The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote but – no less important – that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.

In other words, secularism is a necessary precondition for effective democracy. Without it, nascent democracies rarely survive.

Here’s Hitch, in characteristically forthright style, shredding “Mitt Romney’s windy, worthless speech”. Money quote:

A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man…

Hear, hear! I wish we saw more of this kind of thing:

Defence Minister Lord Drayson has taken a “leave of absence” from the government in a bid to take part in the world-famous 24-hour Le Mans race.

The only downside is that the kind of person who is willing to give up political power in order to follow his or her dream is probably the kind of person we want in government….

Here’s Christopher Orr in TNR:

Whether he intended to or not, at a town meeting in Iowa last night Rudy Giuliani offered what may be the most honest defense of torture I’ve seen from an American politician. It is also, of course, a deeply immoral one. Asked whether waterboarding constituted torture, he replied:
It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. [emphasis mine]
What the United States is doing isn’t torture because it’s the United States doing it. I suspect this is the way a lot of torture apologists feel, but give Giuliani credit for being (I think) the first to come out and say it.

This is the same Giuliani who said at the United Nations, on October 1 2001:

On this issue – terrorism – the United Nations must draw a line. The era of moral relativism between those who practice or condone terrorism, and those nations who stand up against it, must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion and debate.
There is no moral way to sympathize with grossly immoral actions.

Hypocritical S.O.B….

Over at TPM, Josh wonders why Hitchens et al insist on using the term “Islamofacism” instead of some more accurate neologism like “Islamotarianism”. His diagnosis:

The battle against fascism and then later communism were not only by most measures the greatest battles and dangers the United States has ever faced. They were also the greatest mixes of military struggle and intellectual engagement. For people who make their livings with pens and keyboards especially that combination is simply intoxicating. That is, among other reasons, what is behind the very deserved reputation of George Orwell.
But this isn’t 1938 or 1948. A bummer perhaps if you’re aiming to write a political essay for the ages. But not a bad thing if you’re trying to live a life, raise a family or a bunch other things.

A blogger attending a lunch at which Hillary Clinton was speaking reports the following:

What I do know, is that I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office. Lots of heads snapped up when she said that (and there was plenty of applause, even a little whooping) and the very politically plugged in person sitting next to me remarked that the statement was “completely new”. She went on to say that the troops had already done everything they had been asked to do: got rid of Saddam, created a situation where elections could take place, surged to create political stability so the elected Iraqi government could do some legislating and work out a political solution (which she said they have not done) and that it was unfair to ask our troops to stay in Iraq and “play referee to an Iraqi civil war.” She said there is no military solution.

If the report is accurate, and if she sticks – forcefully – to this line, she’s going to be the next POTUS. I think Obama will make a fine VP.

Terry just blogged the following; I can do no better than to simply repeat it.

A Question
From Bill O’Reilly we get the following.
[W]ould you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
To which the the only answer I can think of is,
Hell yes.

Absolutely. I hope one of his (increasingly rare) non-lickspittle guests poses the obvious challenge: “Bill: why do you hate the U.S. Constitution?”

In the aftermath of the Petraeus charade, Andrew Sullivan considers the ever-shifting mission:

Let us review the stated objectives of the Iraq war chronologically:
2002: to disarm Saddam Hussein of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and create a breathing space for democracy in the Middle East (the WMDs were not there; the breathing space became anarchy).
2003: to allow chaos in order to create a “fly-paper” for every jihadist in the world to come and get slaughtered by the US (“Bring it on!”).
2004: to create a new democratic constitution (achieved on paper, but at the price of creating sectarian voting blocs that actually intensified the ethnic and religious divisions pulling the country apart).
2005: to protect Iraq from a powerful and growing Sunni insurgency and disarm the Shi’ite militias (failed).
2006: to quell surging sectarian violence, target a new and lethal Al-Qaeda in Iraq and restrain the passions unleashed by the bombing of the Samarra mosque (failed).
2007: to prevent genocide and a wider regional war and create enough peace for a settlement in the centre (the surge has reduced violence to levels of summer 2006, and no agreement in Baghdad has been reached).
And so the question becomes: what will the objective of the Iraq war be next year?

What indeed? The benchmarks (which Bush sternly promised to “hold” the Iraqi government to) are dead; the Iraqi government itself is collapsing, and Bush’s favourite banker has admitted that the whole thing was really all about oil.
In his disturbing New Yorker essay “Planning for Defeat”, George Packer points out that US objectives and “progress reports” are largely irrelevant, except for the purpose of distracting the media:

The Petraeus-Crocker testimony is the kind of short-lived event on which the Administration has relied to shore up support for the war: the “Mission Accomplished” declaration, the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam’s capture, the transfer of sovereignty, the three rounds of voting, the Plan for Victory, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Every new milestone, however illusory, allows the Administration to avoid thinking ahead, to the years when the mistakes of Iraq will continue to haunt the U.S.

In practice, the only thing that can prevent a substantial withdrawal – to the level where military effectiveness becomes questionable – is the institution of the draft. And that’s not going to happen. But Packer cautions that some kind of continued engagement is inevitable:

The dream of creating a democratic Iraq and transforming the Middle East lies in ruins. Any change in Iraq policy has to begin with the understanding that the original one failed, and that America’s remaining power can only be used to limit the damage. But Iraq still matters to the United States, whoever is in the White House, and it will for years to come.

Unsurprisingly, American politicians of all stripes are ignoring this:

In Washington, the debate over the war is dominated by questions about troop numbers and timelines—that is, by immediate American political realities. The country seems trapped in an eternal present, paralyzed by its past mistakes. There is little or no discussion, on either side, of what America’s Iraq policy should be during the next five or ten years, or of what will be possible as resources dwindle and priorities shift. If there is any contingency planning in the government, it’s being done at such a secretive, or obscure, level that a repetition of the institutional disarray with which America entered Iraq seems bound to mark our departure.

Packer’s essay is profoundly thought-provoking, offering no easy answers for anyone. It’s long, and well worth investing the time to absorb it.

I don’t have a lot to add to what I wrote last year about the anniversary of 9/11. And I still miss Phil, dammit! [Warning: 25MB MPEG4.] And I’m not alone – see this heartfelt piece by Rich.
Last year, I talked about my feelings, and concluded:

But having said that, I am deeply angry that Cheney and his gang have used and abused these emotions for their own bloodthirsty and inexcusably thoughtless warmongering. … I’m not naive – I understand how politics works – but the visceral reaction to those scumbags won’t go away. Nor should it.

And the latest example of that cynical exploitation continues today:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said during a Senate hearing on the future of Iraq with Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, that… “I think we should not have had this discussion on 9/11 or 9/10 or 9/12… It perpetuates this notion that the original attacks had something to do with going into Iraq.”

I agree with the Senator. The unmistakable odour of Rove hangs over the whole thing.